Mitt Romney made a statement yesterday about “firing” people who provide him with services which has been taken out of context. He was talking about health insurance companies, and made the point that he likes to be able to make choices.
I was aware that Rick Perry’s campaign was seeking to take advantage of it, including issuing a phone ringtone. I had not heard Newt seeking to take advantage of it.
So I was surprised to hear an anchor on Fox News (Martha Maccallum) about 30 minutes ago say that Newt was seeking to take advantage of Romney’s statement.
Thankfully I rely more and more on Twitter, because a few minutes ago I saw a link to this video of Newt on Fox News earlier in the morning in which Newt agreed that Romney has been taken out of context:
The Fox News anchor was not aware of what had taken place earlier in the morning on Fox News. But someone I follow on Twitter was aware.
If you are not on Twitter, you need to be.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Of course it is taken out of context, but that isn’t the point.
The point is, Romney will hand Obama victory on a silver platter with lines like “there are lots of reasons not to vote for me” and “I like firing people.”
So when people like Perry capitalize on it, it’s about punching holes in the electability argument.
Yeah, it is out of context. But interestinly it shows a lack of message control on the Romney campaign’s part. A forced error, if you will. Wonder if the attacks are starting to rattle him a bit?
I must admit I thought the ring tone idea was pretty funny.
Good for Newt, and shame on Perry.
Yeah, it’s a shame to use an opponent’s mistake against them.
Whoever the nominee is, I hope they run like McCain did back in 2008 and use kid gloves/mittens.
Um, you do remember Romney going all Mediscare on Perry right? Why is nobody supposed to to be harsh on the inevitable one? Do you think Obama will go easy on him? Or maybe, he should learn how to deal with it.
Yes, and Romney was wrong. Our candidates and our arguments should be able to win a point on the merits without resorting to lies or obvious distortions.
William,
Why are you so in-the-bag for Newt? It really disappoints me. Newt is awful. I’m not saying that you have to stump for Romney or Santorum, but Newt? Really?
one of the benefits of paying the bills is that whoever runs the blog is being allowed to post/stump for whomever they want.
I see a bunch lately complaining about that, I suggest they try buying/running their own site and see how it feels.
/off soapbox now.
If it really disappoints you, you don’t have to read the blog. Who is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to read Prof. Jacobson’s opinions?
If you disagree with Prof. Jacobson’s opinions, kindly state your reasons if you so desire. But don’t kvetch if your positions are challenged. The Professor is kindly providing a forum on the internet, a forum which he owns. You are a guest in his online den, subject to his rules (as am I).
Watch Newt’s speeches.
Newt is awesome. Newt is prepared. Newt is informed. Newt communicates well. Newt has outstanding ideas for empowering the American people.
Newt is the only candidate with a clear plan for how to turn the government back to constitutional principles, allow the genius and power of the American people to be activated in the restoration of freedom, return us to a road of prosperity and opportunity and much more.
But you have to actually watch the speeches to find out what all that means.
Here are 17 speeches CONVENIENTLY put into a list: http://thevailspot.blogspot.com/2012/01/newt-vs-one.html
We are involved in self-government. It requires a more active citizenry. We have allowed socialists and the power-hungry to turn Washington into a money-pit.
Find out what we can do together to restore the constitutional basis of our country; our country that we love.
To @Thismachinethinks: long ago Prof. Jacobson endorsed Newt. He is fair about all the candidates, but clearly declared his opinion long ago. You might want to go back and read up, inform yourself about the Professor and LI, before posting.
And overall, thanks for posting this video, Professor. I know the left and MSM take things out of context all the time. So, no surprise there.
But that Newt both defended Romney and then revealed why this is a problem was great! “Can you imagine if he’d said that in a debate with Barack Obama?” — priceless!! Newt nailed it, because it’s all too true.
I would have missed that otherwise. Thanks, Professor!
Dino,
I read this blog all the time. I’m well aware of the Professor’s opinion of Newt. Whether I’m aware of it is not the pont. I was merely professing my disappointment with the professor’s opinion in this post. But thanks for the condescension.
Machine: “Newt is awful” is a conclusion. Standing alone without any facts or reasoning leading to the conclusion tells us nothing.
Newt Gingrich is smart, articulate and competent. He has a long track record of specific significant accomplishments over many years that improved our laws, improved our economy, and achieved good things for other people.
If you read this blog regularly, you would never have asked that question. The Professor has stated his reasons why he supports Newt over the rest of the candidates often, with logic and clarity.
BTW – it’s not condescension, just the truth.
I completely agree, Professor. About a week or two ago, a lot of left-wing media outlets and Mitt-hating conservative outlets started blasting Mitt and saying he mocked Newt for crying about his parents. Thankfully, many of Twitter pointed out that the outlet that originally reported this (Politico) drastically mischaracterized Mitt’s statement, what it was, and how it came about. In fact, Mitt was not mocking Newt at all, not one iota. Unfortunately, it took some blogs a while to update their stories, while those people who only saw the original posts, the ones made hastily in an attempt to bash Mitt without getting the full evidence of the statement, might not realize that Mitt wasn’t being cruel. Oh well. As you say, thank goodness for Twitter.
Professor, it was not the comment about “firing” people that so many have objected to, it was the comment about “liking to fire people” that was a major gaffe.
No one “likes” to fire people for a number of reasons: a) your own judgement comes into play. You hired someone because in your judgement, they were the best for the job and you have to deal with the fact that you made a poor judgement call and b) no one, who is not a heartless b—tard enjoys putting people out of work, for what ever reason.
Then there is that whole double standard thing where Romney should have fired the lawn service he employed with he learned they used illegal labor, but didn’t for over a year until the Boston Globe reported that he had given them a “second” chance because the owner of the lawn service was a fellow church member of Mitt Romney.
But then, we all know that Mitt is such a nice guy he would NEVER take an opponents comments out of context.
Newt better wake up and realize that playing Mr. Nice Guy cost John McCain the election. And we will have four more years of a socialist in the White House.
Romney will remind the American voters of the guy who laid them off from their job. That was Bain’s modus operandi, wasn’t it?
Behind Romney’s slick image is a snake …… or should I say …. a chameleon.
I understand there is a meeting this weekend in TX to rally the movement conservatives behind one candidate to take on Romney. If they can decide, I think it will come down to Gingrich or Perry.
“Liking to fire people” is a metaphor for liking choices. Get it now?
OK if I am told one more time that Romney is the poor victim my head is going to explode. I just got off the phone with a local conservative talk radio host after listening to him go on for 1 1/2 hours about poor wittle Mitt and how no one was allowed to criticize him. I didn’t like what the other candidates did yesterday but now I’m all for it. If he can’t defend himself without NRO and the rest of the so-called conservative media running interference for him and we nominate him, this country is toast.
Good point. Of course, dare I mention that Bain Capital connections and money grease a lot of media palms.
Mitt Romney ‘liking to fire people’ was just his way of stating his preference that people have choices wherever possible, rather than having choices made for them, that is, having no choice. This is obvious to anyone who holds the full context.
It is said that Romney should have chosen his words better, that his words, “I like firing people”, can and will be used against him by team Obama.
Any candidate who tightly edits an otherwise innocuous sound bite for use against his opposition will have it tossed right back in his face and suffer accordingly. This has already happened a couple times in the GOP primaries.
The overarching point is that no candidate could possibly speak only in words that could never be edited to change the context – it simply isn’t possible.
Candidates and their supporters who do this, as well as Romney and supporters who cry ‘victim!’, employ a high school level of political intercourse.
[Edited to read: “Romney… supporters… employ… intercourse.”]
prof, looks like your twittering is all atwitter 🙂
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/10/politics-vs-policy-on-the-bain-question/
I also liked when Newt stated that, “I warned Mitt not to do this, not to go there” and “I’ve been doing this for a looong time, I know how to do it.” (paraphrase)
Why would anyone NOT know that Newt is more than capable to take the fight to Mitt?! Glad he is reminding them that Romney started this fight, and that Newt is just doing what Mitt asked for – Romney threw down the gauntlet, and now he needs to stand up and take the hits.
(He seems to be the one with the thin skin, IMHO. Not Newt.)
Perry got what he deserves in New Hampshire, Let’s see if he has the grace of Michele Bachman.